Row brews in police top brass over vigilance case against Tomin Thachankary

Vigilance is of the stance that state government’s nod is not needed and only Vigilance Court order is enough.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, some officials say that for preliminary investigation or probe, the state government’s nod is required. To justify that rule 17(A) has been cited by the officials. Referring to the same, the officials say if the mandate is not followed, then the nod of state government is not required for investigation against political leaders including ministers.

Amid this row, it is learnt that Vigilance director Sudesh Kumar has not changed his stance which in turn has stoked allegations that he is targeting Human Rights DGP Tomin Thachankary. There are also insider allegations that Thachankary’s orchestrated efforts led to some cases against Kumar and the latter is giving a blowback.

It is also learnt that the Thachankary and other KFC officials booked in the case will legally pursue against probe that was ordered without the state government’s nod.

The case pertains to the resale of a property at a ‘very low rate’ to KFC without the knowledge of the owner, who defaulted repayment of loan taken from the financial entity. The probe is over a complaint filed by Pearl Hill Builder’s owner PP Abdul Nazar. He, in his complaint, has alleged that Rs 40 crore-worth property was resold for Rs 9.18 crore without his knowledge. Apart from Thachankary, eight others are booked over the matter. They are former KFC Manager Premnath Raveendran, KFC Kozhikode Branch Chief Manager C Abdul Manaf, Puthukkad native KB Pathmadas, Chentrappinni native PT Salim, Pottamal native P Varun, Kollam native S Anilkumar and Kuthiravattam native Anil Kumar.

According to the complaint, the 40 cent land and the building was resold at a rate that is less than the fair value assessed by KFC itself. The complaint had other allegations too. The sale was not intimated to the owner through registered post. Those who bid for the property did not pay the full amount. KFC gave a loan of Rs 5 crore to the party involved in the purchase. The auction was conducted online, which restricted the number of bidders to two. The complainant has also alleged that Supreme Court mandates were not followed in the process. Meanwhile, KFC maintains that all legal mandates have been adhered to in the process. An official concerned told Mathrubhumi.com that the owner earlier filed a complaint but later revoked it. The owner is trying to scapegoat the officials unnecessarily, the person added. The property is near Kozhikode’s Puthiya Bus Stand region. The owner has a loan of Rs 4.89 crore with KFC in which half of the amount has been repaid. The Covid-19 induced crisis resulted in defaults in the payment. The property was sold by citing Rs 9.56 crore debt including interest.